Natasha O’Toole

The appellant insurer challenged a trial judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the respondents for a stolen jewellery claim.

The insurer had denied the claim and defended the action by requiring the insureds to prove pre-policy ownership, despite having accepted their ownership at policy issuance and admitting no material misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of bad faith warranting punitive damages, ruling that the insurer's conduct was an unreasonable and unfair interpretation of the policy.

The Court also affirmed the compensatory damages award based on appraised replacement value, as the insurer failed to provide evidence that actual cash value was lower.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful Rule 21 motion brought by the University of Western Ontario (UWO) to strike the self-represented plaintiff's claim.

UWO sought over $18,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued against any costs, citing impecuniosity and alleged misdirection from a previous judge regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The court, while acknowledging UWO's success, reduced the requested costs to $7,000, finding some of UWO's claimed time excessive (e.g., for scheduling hearings, recycling arguments, and travel).

The court rejected the plaintiff's attempts to re-argue the substantive decision or disclose "without prejudice" settlement offers.

It affirmed that impecuniosity generally does not negate cost liability and that self-represented litigants are subject to cost rules, which serve to manage litigation and deter unreasonable conduct.

The final award was $7,000, payable within 180 days.

The defendant university brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the self-represented plaintiff's amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff alleged the university was liable for medical malpractice committed by physicians who were clinical faculty members or postgraduate students at the university, but who provided care at local hospitals.

The court found the claim novel and applied the Anns/Cooper test, concluding the pleading failed to establish sufficient proximity or a prima facie duty of care, and that policy reasons negated any such duty.

The court struck the claim against the university without leave to amend, noting the plaintiff's repeated failure to plead material facts connecting the physicians' medical care to their university roles.

The appellant, Antonio Doria, appealed the dismissal of his action against the respondents, which was brought after he had already received and collected an arbitration award for the same damages.

The motion judge dismissed the action as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), finding that the plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate damages claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that Section 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not confer an absolute right to pursue separate actions against jointly liable parties if it constitutes an abuse of process, especially when a full opportunity to adjudicate the claim has already occurred and the award collected.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's request for leave to appeal the costs award.

The plaintiff rented his home for a film production, during which his floor was scratched.

He previously arbitrated a claim for $680,000 against the production company and was awarded $49,668.38.

Dissatisfied with the award, the plaintiff commenced a new action against different defendants (Warner Bros. entities) seeking over $500,000 for the same damage.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not permit a plaintiff to relitigate a fully adjudicated claim simply because they are dissatisfied with the damages awarded in the first proceeding.

This appeal addressed the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) to a negligence claim.

Subway sued Trent University for negligence and defamation after Trent's testing of Subway's chicken products was featured on a CBC "Marketplace" broadcast.

The motion judge dismissed Trent's anti-SLAPP motion, finding the negligence claim did not arise from an expression.

The Court of Appeal allowed Trent's appeal, holding that the negligence claim did arise from an expression related to a matter of public interest.

Furthermore, the Court found that Subway's negligence claim lacked substantial merit because no duty of care existed between Trent and Subway, as there was no undertaking of responsibility by Trent in favour of Subway, nor any reliance by Subway on Trent's services or statements.

The motion judge's order was set aside, and Subway's negligence claim was dismissed.

The court determined costs following two anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant broadcaster, having successfully dismissed the defamation claim against it, was awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, though the requested amount was reduced to $500,000 plus disbursements due to the motion's excessive complexity.

The plaintiff, having successfully defeated the defendant university's novel anti-SLAPP motion regarding a negligence claim, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $222,000, as the university's motion lacked the characteristics of a true SLAPP suit.

The defendants, CBC and Trent University, brought anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $210 million defamation and negligence action.

The action arose from a Marketplace report alleging the plaintiffs' chicken sandwiches contained only 50% chicken based on DNA tests conducted by Trent University.

The court granted CBC's motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, CBC had a valid defence of responsible communication and the public interest in protecting investigative journalism outweighed the plaintiffs' private harm.

The court dismissed Trent University's motion, holding that the negligence claim regarding faulty laboratory testing did not arise from an expression relating to a matter of public interest and was therefore not subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

The defendant brought an unopposed motion for leave to serve and file a jury notice after the close of pleadings.

The motion was prompted by the settlement and dismissal of the action against a co-defendant, who had originally filed the jury notice.

The court granted the motion but noted it was surplus to needs, holding that a jury notice remains effective even if the party that filed it is no longer an active party to the litigation, unless it is formally struck out.